That would be anti-theism. I disagree with 99% of the things NS/TB posts, but this isn't one of them. There is no central authority/dogma/prophet/whatever for atheism. Atheism is not a religion, it is simply, lack of belief in god(s).

My only point here is that atheists are just as susceptible to us/them tribalism as any group of humans for which a label can be developed. And tribalism is the energy powers cults.

While I sometimes group myself as an atheist for practical purposes, I'm agnostic. I find agnosticism to be the true "no belief belief." I may reject the gods and origin stories of all the various religions like an atheist, I cannot say there is no god. (for want of a better term) And that point of difference between agnosticism and atheism can be as great as there is between atheism and Christianity.

That would be anti-theism. I disagree with 99% of the things NS/TB posts, but this isn't one of them. There is no central authority/dogma/prophet/whatever for atheism. Atheism is not a religion, it is simply, lack of belief in god(s).

Point taken. I was just asking NS because at times, he pretty much wallpapers his opposition to someone's religious beliefs here when it comes to Islam.

As for Atheism, being an Atheist may not come with any central authority, although there are quite a few politically active groups who exist just to push back against organized religion. For example, the group, the American Atheists, was created to defend the civil liberties of Atheists, Humanists and Secularists and as a group constantly works to promote the complete separation between church and state in the U.S. They many not have a central leadership role, but they're very active in politics in order to defend what they see as attacks against their civil rights, especially since the current administration just passed of a bunch of religious freedom laws, not caring in the least that one person's newly minted freedom is another person's newly minted repression. It then becomes an us against them thing, which is tribal.

My only point here is that atheists are just as susceptible to us/them tribalism as any group of humans for which a label can be developed. And tribalism is the energy powers cults.

While I sometimes group myself as an atheist for practical purposes, I'm agnostic. I find agnosticism to be the true "no belief belief." I may reject the gods and origin stories of all the various religions like an atheist, I cannot say there is no god. (for want of a better term) And that point of difference between agnosticism and atheism can be as great as there is between atheism and Christianity.

Not really, since if no religions were ever introduced, it would be the default.

Then we'd all be part of the Human Tribe. But remember, the human brain has a religiosity component built in along with the desire to belong to a social tribe of like-mined individuals. It wouldn't take long for a subset of people to come up with a new "religion" that they claimed explains existence. Then the rest of the main tribe would label them heretics or something like that and so either attempt to kill them off or banish them for being the non-conformists to the big tribe.

Burlyman, slick's right. You started this thread, so where are you?

Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.

You're right - humanity has had thousands of religions, and every believer will admit that all of them can't be real (in fact that only theirs is) - atheism is just the logical extension of that pattern that simply favors no religion at all

Where am I? I'm living my life doing more interesting things. I don't always post on the DBB. My original intent was to ask if I could post about religion, not to make this thread into a religious thread. I was just asking permission. Some people say atheism has no central authority but it has people like Neil de Grasse-Tyson and Bill Nye and even Stephen Hawking etc. who agree upon a core set of beliefs, and it seems like anyone who isn't a big banger and such is a heretic and called "crackpot" by the religious authority of the monkeyists

if you don't accept that SOME sort of event like a big-bang occurred, and that the world is more than a few thousand years old, YES, you are a crackpot. Pure and simple, God gave us minds to learn, and by learning, we now know a lot more about life on earth, etc.

"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"

pretty much why I left the point vague. At any rate, he exposes his intellect when he treats folks like Tyson and Nye as having a 'religion'. It's called grey matter, intellect, or education. That is NOT a religion, where faith is accepted in things without data, question or even consistency of logical progression. There are great intellects, educated minds amongst religious people. That isn't the issue. It seems to me Burlyman simply wishes to dismiss intellectuals or scientists altogether. That isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of willful ignorance. In other words, THESE are the words of an ignorant person, not a relgious one: "Some people say atheism has no central authority but it has people like Neil de Grasse-Tyson and Bill Nye and even Stephen Hawking etc. who agree upon a core set of beliefs, and it seems like anyone who isn't a big banger and such is a heretic and called "crackpot" by the religious authority of the monkeyists "

"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"

Pbfffft, you don't need a flu shot either, not that they made a good match for the current strain anyway. According to her, if you just sit and pray, Jesus will either prevent you from getting the flu or else heal your sorry ass if your prayers were ignored and you DO get the flu. AND, He'll keep you from dying.

Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.

Pbfffft, you don't need a flu shot either, not that they made a good match for the current strain anyway. According to her, if you just sit and pray, Jesus will either prevent you from getting the flu or else heal your sorry ass if your prayers were ignored and you DO get the flu. AND, He'll keep you from dying.

LOL. And if you DO die, you'll go to heaven! Win win win!

Where's the part where you give the televangelist all of your money to secure your place with God?

Pbfffft, you don't need a flu shot either, not that they made a good match for the current strain anyway. According to her, if you just sit and pray, Jesus will either prevent you from getting the flu or else heal your sorry ass if your prayers were ignored and you DO get the flu. AND, He'll keep you from dying.

LOL. And if you DO die, you'll go to heaven! Win win win!

Where's the part where you give the televangelist all of your money to secure your place with God?

I guess the video doesn't have that part. But you can be rest assured that some sort of tithe was requested at the beginning or end of her spiel. That's a given with all televangelists.

Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.

The first is the classic question of "why is there anything and not nothing?" I suppose this question isn't unique to the nonreligious as most religions seem to make even worse of this problem by replacing the universe as the first thing with a personal deity. Somehow I can stomach a universe with relatively simple laws existing for no reason better than I can a complex person existing for no reason. But it seems like religion should have an answer to "why is there anything" at least, even if it doesn't. Maybe this is where the concept of the multiverse helps a bit.

The second question that bothers me is essentially the hard problem of consciousness--how can some configuration of atoms and the void give rise to the phenomenon of experience. I don't see a way for this to ever be scientifically explained. The religious concept of a soul seems particularly compelling here. But if the soul does exist, I don't think it's all that most religious people crack it up to be. It doesn't seem to contain one's memories, personality, or even character, as these seem tied up pretty well in brain states. And even consciousness itself would appear to be tied up pretty well to the state of your brain, and so it's not very clear to me what that would leave a soul.

if you don't accept that SOME sort of event like a big-bang occurred, and that the world is more than a few thousand years old, YES, you are a crackpot. Pure and simple, God gave us minds to learn, and by learning, we now know a lot more about life on earth, etc.

See what I mean? You just proved my point, you little advanced monkey. How the heck did you get that I want to dismiss intellectuals and science from what I said?

The second question that bothers me is essentially the hard problem of consciousness--how can some configuration of atoms and the void give rise to the phenomenon of experience. I don't see a way for this to ever be scientifically explained. The religious concept of a soul seems particularly compelling here. But if the soul does exist, I don't think it's all that most religious people crack it up to be. It doesn't seem to contain one's memories, personality, or even character, as these seem tied up pretty well in brain states. And even consciousness itself would appear to be tied up pretty well to the state of your brain, and so it's not very clear to me what that would leave a soul.

Phineas Gage pretty clearly demonstrates this relationship between the brain and personality.

It's possible and necessary for life to continue to exist in a chaotic world where entropy rules. In order for life to deal with constantly changing environmental conditions, it needs the ability to mutate and adapt in response to those changes, all in order to survive.

I posted this video on the PTMC a while back. It shows the E-Coli bacterium mutating and adapting to differing strengths of antibiotics and surviving, with gusto. Not good news for us, but good for the bacterium. If a bacterium can evolve, so can any other life form that's coded in DNA, the building blocks of life, given that any environmental changes are slow enough for adaptation to take hold and not be fatal. Some mutations help the organism to survive, some kill. Some mutations occur on purpose, some are accidental. It's called evolution when that life form survives and even thrives with those new mutations. But just because there's evolution, that doesn't automatically disprove a God or some sort of creator from existing. Evolution may actually be part of the grand plan for the life on this planet in the first place.

Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.

how can I put this as gently as possible? You are a ★■◆● idiot. Evolution is not only NOT impossible, nor unlikely, it is demonstrable under lab conditions for rapidly reproducing species. Please, try to keep from giving religion a bad name. That assertion was flat out moronic. Yes, we humans evolved from certain great apes, who in turn were part of a provable genetic pathway that links back to a host of evolutionary predecessors. The proof is available for much of that pathway, for those with open minds, who do the work to read the scientific texts.

"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"

The second question that bothers me is essentially the hard problem of consciousness--how can some configuration of atoms and the void give rise to the phenomenon of experience. I don't see a way for this to ever be scientifically explained. The religious concept of a soul seems particularly compelling here. But if the soul does exist, I don't think it's all that most religious people crack it up to be. It doesn't seem to contain one's memories, personality, or even character, as these seem tied up pretty well in brain states. And even consciousness itself would appear to be tied up pretty well to the state of your brain, and so it's not very clear to me what that would leave a soul.

there is a huge body of work that goes far in explaining how large series' of electrical impulses and chemical reactions shape the neurological phenomenon we call 'experience'(with recall of experience being 'memory'). Any cursory look at the human brain and nervous system will reveal a massively complex system with complex chemistry driving the whole operation. That we don't yet understand 10% of what is going on does NOT render the whole set of phenomena as 'unlikely' or 'unexplainable'. That is intellectual weakness to suggest that, IMHO.

"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"